So, you are saying that all the encryption will be broken and your solution is to move to something else?! Even without having to analyse the implications/sensibility of that first statement, anyone saying such a thing should be completely aware about its meaning. Encryption refers to virtually any way to hide information. The only alternative to encryption is immediately understandable information. On the other hand, the underlying premise to that first statement (being able to almost immediately decrypt anything) is certainly quite incompatible with any form of encryption.
Yesterday, I did a programming interview completely focused on technical aspects, but not too deep and the interviewer seemed nice and understanding. After writing the code to solve a fairly easy problem, the interviewer asked me about the time/space complexity. I said that I was understanding what he was expecting (big-O), but that I would prefer a different approach; due to my background and to how most of my programming learning happened (at work, during the last quite a few years), I don't rely on those concepts intuitively. I explained him that my algorithm was slightly inefficient, but much more modular; also that, even under extreme conditions, the proposed problem was too simplistic to provoke any time/memory problems. To not mention that I relied on specific functionalities of the given programming language whose memory/time impact should also be weighted, what wasn't precisely a simple matter (other than via my relevant experience with that language). Long story short, I said that rather than blindly applying certain generic ideas, I brought my experience (what was precisely being assessed there) into picture and made a decision by accounting for different aspects. He said me that everything sounded fine, but that he wanted his answer. What he finally seemed to get via "do you mean that it is directly related to...?" Did he ignore all what I said and try to fit it within the answer which he was expecting? Logically, I understand that he was probably following a some instructions, but this isn't relevant for the point I am trying to make.
How are the two previous paragraphs related you might wonder? Both refer to what, IMHO, is misusing theoretical abstractions (or, at least, not maximising all what they might bring). Personally, I tend to have a quite practical approach to almost anything, but also understand the utility of more generic methodologies mainly in certain contexts and for certain people. What I cannot defend is people forgetting about the actual point of the given abstraction (helping understand) and elevating it to some kind of ultimate truth; much less when dealing with knowledgeable enough individuals (blind application of what is assumed to always work is usually the resource of people with limited knowledge). The only goal which any scientific-like field or person should pursue is the truth, objective correction, proper understanding of what actually is. If you stop caring about that goal and, rather than improving your understanding and knowledge, focus on making sure that whatever assumption has to be true, you would move from scientific-like to religious-like, even to fanatic-like.
Sorry if my attitude wasn't too clear, but I didn't mean any disrespect. I am not interested in discussing about certain issues either. My sole intention was highlighting that the mass-3D-pressure idea is applicable here, regardless of the default assumptions in whatever other context (quantum mechanics or anything else). Hopefully, you will understand my position, that I have already written a lot and that I will better stop it here.
We call this "quantum mechanics" where particles act like waves (and waves act like particles) and things can have momentum but no mass.
As explained to others, you can use whatever approach makes you happier, but you shouldn't expect the whole world to adapt to it. Similarly to what happens in other physics-related fields, different paths are really heading to pretty much the same place. Branches like electricity, chemistry, thermodynamics, etc. might seem different than (classic) mechanics but, at end, all of them have to be coherent with each other. Your quantum mechanics ignores lots of things which other branches might care about? No complaint, if it works (for you). But you should better not think that yours is the only theory around or that its applicability is absolute. Also remember that your assumptions are only that, assumptions, not absolute truths. In other contexts, you might have to apply different assumptions.
As explained to others and usually happens everywhere else, it is a matter of context. From a macro-atomic point of view, you might safely assume atoms (or their constituents) are punctual. Or even when analysing them from a point of view where geometry is irrelevant. For example, you can assume that electrons are 1D elements when calculating an electric current or a voltage. But if you want go much deeper, understand why energy/force/pressure is generated at all and individually analyse one electron, you would have to consider mass/dimensions. This article talks about pressure because this is what is being described here (force on a massive object, no matter how small it is). What is useful under certain conditions, might be useless everywhere else. All what matters is making sure that you understand the given context and behave accordingly.
An even more solid argument against the point particle idea: in this specific context, it is simply incongruent. We are precisely talking about the existence of sub-atomic particles, what converts atomic particles into containers, forcibly 3D entities. Even if you could defend their (real world) 1D essence at all, you would have to deny the existence of any sub-atomic element. Additionally and going back to the original discussion: just the mere fact of being inside a container (= necessarily a 3D space) supports the reference to pressure, even in case of considering quarks as 1D elements. The pressure could be applied on the 3D space (empty space or various quarks at the same time) anyway.
then each position would require an infinite amount of information
I am not saying otherwise. You can perfectly define the position of any body in space by relying on 3 dimensions, each of them defined by infinite numbers if you wish. But only 3 dimensions for all what we can see, touch, eat, etc.
If position is quantized, then you can have a particle that occupies 1 quantum point and nothing else.
You are mixing up theoretical approaches. If you want to rely on (Euclidean) geometry to perfectly position any element, you can do so. For the real world, you would need 3 dimensions and this is the beginning and the end of the story. If, for whatever reason, you prefer to rely on a different methodology, it would also be fine. But if you start mixing up ideas from both approaches and gluing them together by relying on so arbitrary means as treating different concepts as identical just for having the same name ("dimension"), then you might come to very wrong conclusions. And this is where your reasoning seems to be heading, but well... I will continue reading just in case.
the concepts of surface area and volume lose their meaning.
So far as anyone can determine, an electron is a point particle. It has no volume and no surface area.
I don't like saying "I told you so", but...:)
Let me go one step backwards and wonder about the exact point of our present discussion, of physics as a whole if you wish. The whole point here is getting a clear picture of an intrinsically complex reality. That's why we created abstractions like dimensions or pressure. Because of that same reason, some people rely on quantum mechanics to deal with certain scenarios. Within that context, you ideas might make sense, to help you/others understand better certain phenomena. It even makes lots of sense to have many rules, assumptions, re-definitions of concepts, etc. but only for as long as you are fulfilling the intended goal (properly understanding). When you forget about it and start blindly applying those originally-instrumental ideas everywhere else, even at the expense of reducing clarity, I stop seeing the point of your approach.
Or, by asking a question similar to yours, how do you calculate the pressure on an electron? Which dimensions would you choose to calculate the required area? Or do you consider that you cannot apply pressure on electrons? Or that electrons don't have area? Please, illustrate me.
Apropos of nothing, what are the dimensions of an electron?
I think that the context of the current discussion and my point was pretty clear. We are talking about (mechanical) forces and geometries dealing with them. The word "dimension" has different meanings, like many other words, assumed to be properly understood within the given context. The only reasonable misinterpretations of my words I can think of are 4D (3D + time) and 1D/2D (simplistic geometries), all of them used in geometrical/mechanical calculations.
you are confusing the macroscopic world with the quantum world.
You are confusing a specific theory dealing with a specific subset of problems in a specific way with it being absolutely applicable, even over the much more comprehensive theory from which it is supposed to be a part of. If you assume that atomic particles are formed by other smaller particles, the basic principles of general physics (mechanics in this case) would be applicable to them regardless of anything else. Unless you can come up with a justification for that not being the case. Or, in other words, a new geometry where massive non 3D objects can exist outside your imagination (a be targetted by force/pressure).
Pressure is force per unit of area and is relevant in any context where an area exists. No matter how small quarks are, they are 3D objects and forces applied on them can be modelled via pressure.
Like density or "edges"
Same than before: size doesn't matter for any of this. See the proton as an sphere and the elements inside it having certain distribution.
Jokes aside and by being a bit pedantic, I would say that one thing is the empirical reality of everything on Earth falling downwards and a completely different story is the theoretical approaches trying to explain said phenomenon. If you use the word "gravity" to refer to the phenomenon itself, nobody in their right mind should deny their existence. On the other hand, if you refer to one of the theories trying to explain why that phenomenon exists, some people might think that it is wrong. Again, nobody in their right mind should ever interpret a critic to a theory as a denial of the underlying phenomenon, much less when dealing with something whose existence is so evident.
Rather than "gravity is just a theory", I would say that the word "gravity" might be used to refer to one of the theories which try to explain the aforementioned reality. Personally, I prefer to use "gravity" for the phenomenon and "theory X about..." for whatever theory. It seems much less confusing in this way.
Perhaps my previous post wasn't too clear on this front, so I will better highlight that I consider your sexist remark (boys/men different than girls/women) pointless. I personally treat everyone identically regardless of their generic features. But if you want me to rely on some generic prejudices, I would say that a big proportion of women (at least, during the last years and within western countries) might easily deliver my aforementioned "ridiculous misinterpretations in very aggressive, coward and even obsessive ways". As far as you seem to like generic-prejudices-based communication, I guess that you shouldn't mind me saying that women tend to blindly apply/defend the status quo rather than critically understanding specific scenarios. Men do certainly tend to be more aggressive, but also straightforward and confident what might be quite helpful when trying to understand others. These generic features seem even more accentuated in older generations: men being more aggressive and (in many cases, unmotivatedly) confident about their positions; and women more focused on blindly (and not always directly/openly) defending whatever they think that is right rather than on properly understanding. Or, by relying on an example like yours, what do all those girls who grew dreaming about becoming Jackie Kennedy or Princess Diana and gradually realised that their lives will never be like that? Accept their responsibility, try to enjoy what they have/improve it or get unreasonably frustrated and try to blame someone else?
As said, the aforementioned ideas don't represent what I think, just what I consider a reasonably good generic-prejudice-based counterpoint to your post. I consider equally invalid any opinion based on whatever generic features which I (don't) have. I am a man, but there are many men with whom I share pretty much nothing. There are also many people in their 30s-40s having nothing to do with me. Similar ideas apply to my country-(wo)men (Spain) and to those sharing my race (white), level of education (university), career (programming/engineering), etc. Since my first post in this thread, I referred to stupid people, not to men/women, old/young, sexists/tolerant, etc. I only said that there are lots of people with serious understanding problems and all the replies seemed to have confirmed that initial point.
Reaching a point where you actually can and are willing to properly understand others in almost any scenario (= becoming sensible, knowledgeable, understanding, etc.) is and has always been reserved to the few. It isn't just about jokes, sharp remarks or intuitively recognising when someone is trying to trick you, but about pretty much everything. Also about becoming properly-speaking adults accepting themselves, what they have/can, taking responsibility for their own mistakes, etc. Under exactly the same conditions, some people will deliver better outputs than others. The problem now, mainly in internet, is the huge visibility that everything and everyone has; even worse: the appearance of new waves of fanaticism in the form of trends, manipulation, people repeating over and over pure nonsense. Having immediate access to so much knowledge can be overwhelming for a big number of people or avoid them to properly accept themselves/the world.
The higher the availability of resources of all kinds, the lower the restrictions/borders, the more likely that more people will be able to learn more and better, to understand what they want and get it. Unfortunately, internet isn't a non-profit only looking for improving everyone's lives, but pretty much the opposite: the most heartless, aggressively capitalist system (or, at least, enabler) ever created. Apparently, one of the most efficient proceedings to get benefits no matter what is telling people what they want to hear. And a big number of people seems to be mostly interested in hearing how intelligent they are, how well they do everything, how special they are, how easily they could reach anything with no effort and, mainly, that every problem is some else's fault. Internet does allow to accomplish many things which were impossible years ago, but the required effort to convert that opportunity into reality will always be there. A big number of people seem to have forgotten about that. Also internet gives voice to lots of individuals about whom almost nobody would have heard otherwise.
Note that I personally find much more serious understanding problems among younger people (I am almost 40 myself). Some older people might have a bit outdated ideas and problems to adapt to the modern world, but properly speaking/self-aware adults are rarely the problem (and reaching that stage, although not directly/necessarily related to age, is usually associated with time, having made lots of errors, etc.). Easily-manipulable young (again not meaning just age) people are good targets for lost (and/or egoist, greedy, with lacks on many fronts) individuals and expectations making them enter into the stupid sub-level that, hopefully, some of them will eventually leave.
TL;DR: the resources (to be happy, to be knowledgeable, to be self aware, to virtually everything) are better than ever before, but also the visibility and the easy/stupid-making/fanatic alternatives. As they say: with great power comes great responsibility.
No, kenh is rather common and unexceptional, to the point of banality.
And not just on Slashdot, or the Internet, but across the world at large.
Perhaps you are right and this is pretty much the reason why I will better stop posting in Slashdot (and even in internet in general). Just for a while, forever, who knows for sure? I am fine with having lots of problems to find people able and willing to properly understand, but getting systematically involved in ridiculous conversations between what I say and the craziest misinterpretations of my words is starting to be too tiring. And the best part is that I don't need to tolerate anything of that!
I have always been after the same: finding people seeing the world as I do. I have tried to help and to contribute to what I think that is better for the highest number of people, but always by accepting that some people might not want to change. Don't you like how I think? No problem. Just avoid dealing with me. I have over-explained way much more than required; but aggressive, self-invited, in-denial individuals keep coming to me with their unreasonable concerns. Why continuing, then? To get involved in 2-3 kind-of-sensible-but-not-precisely-marvellous discussions and then a completely crazy one? This doesn't seem worthy to me.
This seems like a quite good last post, at least for a while. I will be answering whatever reply, but not writing new posts. I might come back in some months, no idea. So long, Slashdot.
Does anyone know how it works internally? I guess that, practically speaking, its main point is having a positive impact on how Google is perceived. I also guess that they are "motivated" to find as many big bugs as possible. But there are tons of possible targets out there and finding serious bugs requires a relevant effort. Any clue about their usual approach on this front? There isn't much available information and I am honestly curious.
Thanks to Ken in this sub-thread, I realised that that the parent comment might still be a bit confusing for some people. So, I clarify that all my plural references (e.g., "The more we evolve") were meant to refer to the whole human kind. Logically, I am included in that group and that's why I am part of that "we"; but also logically I am not including myself within the stupids subset.
There will be no AI-based apocalypse of any sort; at least, not within the next many many years. In fact, so many disproportionate expectations might be provoking the evolution of this subfield to be notably worse than ideal. Unnecessarily speeding up so complex developments is likely to output bad quality, problems and, eventually, bad advertisement with subsequent mistrust.
I meant "You are a workbook sample of the kind of personality which will never have anything to do with me!" rather than "You are a workbook sample of the kind of personality which will ever have anything to do with me".
There are other (irrelevant) mistakes, but I only clarify this one to make sure that Ken or similar don't think that I want to have anything to do with them.
is holding out the possibility that someone may believe the post wasn't sarcastic, but serious.
I have met lots of people having problems to understand way simpler statements. You are actually not understanding my position and reacting unreasonably aggressively to an in-principle-not-going-with-you generic statement, so you are kind of proving my point of lots of people with lots of understanding problems everywhere.
We all noticed
Aren't you just one person or do you have a multiple personality disorder or are you simply in completely denial and think that everyone else around you have the same understanding/behaviours problems that you have? I have been visiting Slashdot for a while now and I am quite sure that your unreasonably aggressiveness and lack of understanding isn't the standard here. You seem more like an exception, at least among the logged-in users.
to convince us
Convincing you (all)?! LOL. You are definitively in denial, the sub-version misinterpreting explanations as excuses to their self-elevated authorities whose agreement have to be obtained. LOL. Just FYI, I mostly explain to those who I consider that aren't able to understand by their own, not for convincing (you try to convince authorities which you recognise as such and whose decisions are relevant to you; in my case, this happens with people who, at least, are able to understand what I consider basic without help) but helping them.
someone - not you, but someone - might take the comment serious?
So, you are saying that my first comment was my alibi, right? Like these people not understanding something and just repeating what others say to look smart (an expression which I have always found very funny, almost sitcom material) or attacking those using many words or something like that, right? LOL. Nothing of that applies to me. I don't care about others' absolute opinions/validation, but about dealing with people able to get involved in sensible conversations, to objectively understand, etc. I don't lie. I don't do anything to show whatever. All what I say is meant to be understood exactly as per my evident intention. If you have any doubt, you can ask me and I would tell you exactly what I meant. Nothing to interpret. No hidden meanings.
Imagining someone is more gullible than you, more sexist, more biased than you doesn't make you less gullible, sexist, or less biased.
Where have I said anything against that evident (at least for me) statement? I am not sexist or biased, at least not in a relevant conscious way. I think that I am pretty much the opposite than gullible in general, but I guess that, under the right conditions, everyone is a bit gullible. But no idea what has this to do with what I said. Again you want to see non-existing meaning from my quite straightforwards words.
The "big proportion" you seem to imagine only, apparently, lives in your mind
Most of people are intelligent, sensible, logical, practical, etc.? The world is a marvelous place where everyone understands everything properly? Most of people make excellent decisions, don't have unreasonable feelings like hate or fear unless under well justified conditions, take responsibility of all what they provoke by themselves without blaming anyone else? I see it now! I was so blind! LOL. You are a workbook sample of the kind of personality which will ever have anything to do with me! This is the softest version I can come up with to describe your "peculiarities".
or are incapable of clicking submit as Anonymous Coward.
LOL. First of all, I have never ever posted anonymously here or anywhere else, not for something that I care. No idea what is the matter with some people (very intelligent and secure all of them. LOL) and doing-crazy-things-because-nobody-knows-it-is-you. I have never had that need in any contex
And yet, only YOU brought it up as even possibly being serious...
???!!!! Where have you got from that I have even slightly implied that a so evident joke should be taken seriously by anyone? I said that there are many stupid (a group to which you seem to belong) unable to understand ideas as simple as that. My comment was mainly targeting the obviously part, obvious for me and for that poster, but not for many other individuals. Like the intention of my clarification, extremely evident but apparently too difficult for you.
I will better not do it. You are putting together some unreasonable prejudices, coming up with quite "curious" conclusions and apparently implying that anything of what you are saying has anything to do with my posts or the one to which I firstly replied, when this is clearly not the case. I simply highlighted that a big proportion of people, regardless of anything else, are pretty stupid in the sense of not being able to adequately understand relatively simple ideas like (theoretically) evident jokes. That's why I think that the original post "obviously he's being sarcastic." is likely to not be true for a big proportion of potential readers, unable to get the sarcasm without some additional help. BTW, are you getting the irony of me having to explain you what is going on here?
And maybe, just maybe, they'll grow up one day too.
This sounds nice and logical and sensible and how could it be otherwise?, etc. But then why there are so many problems and have always been so many problems in the world? Why fanaticism, unreasonably hate and prejudices exist? Why sensible, knowledgeable, calmed, long-term-focused people aren't ruling the world? Because the reality is that only a few people will learn from/take responsibility for their errors and will eventually grow up, but most of them will continue being stupid.
The more we evolve and the better are the available resources (internet is potentially a huge deal on the knowledge sharing front), the less stupid we are likely to be. But it will still take a very long time before fanaticism, unmotivated fears, not-properly-understanding others or similar nonsense will be completely removed. So, I will better continue assuming that most of people aren't able to properly understand almost anything.
Slashdot Mirror
So, you are saying that all the encryption will be broken and your solution is to move to something else?! Even without having to analyse the implications/sensibility of that first statement, anyone saying such a thing should be completely aware about its meaning. Encryption refers to virtually any way to hide information. The only alternative to encryption is immediately understandable information. On the other hand, the underlying premise to that first statement (being able to almost immediately decrypt anything) is certainly quite incompatible with any form of encryption.
Yesterday, I did a programming interview completely focused on technical aspects, but not too deep and the interviewer seemed nice and understanding. After writing the code to solve a fairly easy problem, the interviewer asked me about the time/space complexity. I said that I was understanding what he was expecting (big-O), but that I would prefer a different approach; due to my background and to how most of my programming learning happened (at work, during the last quite a few years), I don't rely on those concepts intuitively. I explained him that my algorithm was slightly inefficient, but much more modular; also that, even under extreme conditions, the proposed problem was too simplistic to provoke any time/memory problems. To not mention that I relied on specific functionalities of the given programming language whose memory/time impact should also be weighted, what wasn't precisely a simple matter (other than via my relevant experience with that language). Long story short, I said that rather than blindly applying certain generic ideas, I brought my experience (what was precisely being assessed there) into picture and made a decision by accounting for different aspects. He said me that everything sounded fine, but that he wanted his answer. What he finally seemed to get via "do you mean that it is directly related to...?" Did he ignore all what I said and try to fit it within the answer which he was expecting? Logically, I understand that he was probably following a some instructions, but this isn't relevant for the point I am trying to make.
How are the two previous paragraphs related you might wonder? Both refer to what, IMHO, is misusing theoretical abstractions (or, at least, not maximising all what they might bring). Personally, I tend to have a quite practical approach to almost anything, but also understand the utility of more generic methodologies mainly in certain contexts and for certain people. What I cannot defend is people forgetting about the actual point of the given abstraction (helping understand) and elevating it to some kind of ultimate truth; much less when dealing with knowledgeable enough individuals (blind application of what is assumed to always work is usually the resource of people with limited knowledge). The only goal which any scientific-like field or person should pursue is the truth, objective correction, proper understanding of what actually is. If you stop caring about that goal and, rather than improving your understanding and knowledge, focus on making sure that whatever assumption has to be true, you would move from scientific-like to religious-like, even to fanatic-like.
Sorry if my attitude wasn't too clear, but I didn't mean any disrespect. I am not interested in discussing about certain issues either. My sole intention was highlighting that the mass-3D-pressure idea is applicable here, regardless of the default assumptions in whatever other context (quantum mechanics or anything else). Hopefully, you will understand my position, that I have already written a lot and that I will better stop it here.
We call this "quantum mechanics" where particles act like waves (and waves act like particles) and things can have momentum but no mass.
As explained to others, you can use whatever approach makes you happier, but you shouldn't expect the whole world to adapt to it. Similarly to what happens in other physics-related fields, different paths are really heading to pretty much the same place. Branches like electricity, chemistry, thermodynamics, etc. might seem different than (classic) mechanics but, at end, all of them have to be coherent with each other. Your quantum mechanics ignores lots of things which other branches might care about? No complaint, if it works (for you). But you should better not think that yours is the only theory around or that its applicability is absolute. Also remember that your assumptions are only that, assumptions, not absolute truths. In other contexts, you might have to apply different assumptions.
described as being point-like
As explained to others and usually happens everywhere else, it is a matter of context. From a macro-atomic point of view, you might safely assume atoms (or their constituents) are punctual. Or even when analysing them from a point of view where geometry is irrelevant. For example, you can assume that electrons are 1D elements when calculating an electric current or a voltage. But if you want go much deeper, understand why energy/force/pressure is generated at all and individually analyse one electron, you would have to consider mass/dimensions. This article talks about pressure because this is what is being described here (force on a massive object, no matter how small it is). What is useful under certain conditions, might be useless everywhere else. All what matters is making sure that you understand the given context and behave accordingly.
sub-atomic particles
Not sure if this is the most correct designation, but I guess that what I meant should be clear: particles forming other atomic particles.
An even more solid argument against the point particle idea: in this specific context, it is simply incongruent. We are precisely talking about the existence of sub-atomic particles, what converts atomic particles into containers, forcibly 3D entities. Even if you could defend their (real world) 1D essence at all, you would have to deny the existence of any sub-atomic element. Additionally and going back to the original discussion: just the mere fact of being inside a container (= necessarily a 3D space) supports the reference to pressure, even in case of considering quarks as 1D elements. The pressure could be applied on the 3D space (empty space or various quarks at the same time) anyway.
then each position would require an infinite amount of information
I am not saying otherwise. You can perfectly define the position of any body in space by relying on 3 dimensions, each of them defined by infinite numbers if you wish. But only 3 dimensions for all what we can see, touch, eat, etc.
If position is quantized, then you can have a particle that occupies 1 quantum point and nothing else.
You are mixing up theoretical approaches. If you want to rely on (Euclidean) geometry to perfectly position any element, you can do so. For the real world, you would need 3 dimensions and this is the beginning and the end of the story. If, for whatever reason, you prefer to rely on a different methodology, it would also be fine. But if you start mixing up ideas from both approaches and gluing them together by relying on so arbitrary means as treating different concepts as identical just for having the same name ("dimension"), then you might come to very wrong conclusions. And this is where your reasoning seems to be heading, but well... I will continue reading just in case.
the concepts of surface area and volume lose their meaning.
So far as anyone can determine, an electron is a point particle. It has no volume and no surface area.
I don't like saying "I told you so", but... :)
Let me go one step backwards and wonder about the exact point of our present discussion, of physics as a whole if you wish. The whole point here is getting a clear picture of an intrinsically complex reality. That's why we created abstractions like dimensions or pressure. Because of that same reason, some people rely on quantum mechanics to deal with certain scenarios. Within that context, you ideas might make sense, to help you/others understand better certain phenomena. It even makes lots of sense to have many rules, assumptions, re-definitions of concepts, etc. but only for as long as you are fulfilling the intended goal (properly understanding). When you forget about it and start blindly applying those originally-instrumental ideas everywhere else, even at the expense of reducing clarity, I stop seeing the point of your approach.
Or, by asking a question similar to yours, how do you calculate the pressure on an electron? Which dimensions would you choose to calculate the required area? Or do you consider that you cannot apply pressure on electrons? Or that electrons don't have area? Please, illustrate me.
Apropos of nothing, what are the dimensions of an electron?
I think that the context of the current discussion and my point was pretty clear. We are talking about (mechanical) forces and geometries dealing with them. The word "dimension" has different meanings, like many other words, assumed to be properly understood within the given context. The only reasonable misinterpretations of my words I can think of are 4D (3D + time) and 1D/2D (simplistic geometries), all of them used in geometrical/mechanical calculations.
you are confusing the macroscopic world with the quantum world.
You are confusing a specific theory dealing with a specific subset of problems in a specific way with it being absolutely applicable, even over the much more comprehensive theory from which it is supposed to be a part of. If you assume that atomic particles are formed by other smaller particles, the basic principles of general physics (mechanics in this case) would be applicable to them regardless of anything else. Unless you can come up with a justification for that not being the case. Or, in other words, a new geometry where massive non 3D objects can exist outside your imagination (a be targetted by force/pressure).
You are wrong about quarks being 3D objects
Every single existing bit (with mass) has 3 dimensions. Any other number of dimensions is only possible in our imagination, not in the physical world.
pressure was a more macroscopic concept
Pressure is force per unit of area and is relevant in any context where an area exists. No matter how small quarks are, they are 3D objects and forces applied on them can be modelled via pressure.
Like density or "edges"
Same than before: size doesn't matter for any of this. See the proton as an sphere and the elements inside it having certain distribution.
Jokes aside and by being a bit pedantic, I would say that one thing is the empirical reality of everything on Earth falling downwards and a completely different story is the theoretical approaches trying to explain said phenomenon. If you use the word "gravity" to refer to the phenomenon itself, nobody in their right mind should deny their existence. On the other hand, if you refer to one of the theories trying to explain why that phenomenon exists, some people might think that it is wrong. Again, nobody in their right mind should ever interpret a critic to a theory as a denial of the underlying phenomenon, much less when dealing with something whose existence is so evident.
Rather than "gravity is just a theory", I would say that the word "gravity" might be used to refer to one of the theories which try to explain the aforementioned reality. Personally, I prefer to use "gravity" for the phenomenon and "theory X about..." for whatever theory. It seems much less confusing in this way.
Perhaps my previous post wasn't too clear on this front, so I will better highlight that I consider your sexist remark (boys/men different than girls/women) pointless. I personally treat everyone identically regardless of their generic features. But if you want me to rely on some generic prejudices, I would say that a big proportion of women (at least, during the last years and within western countries) might easily deliver my aforementioned "ridiculous misinterpretations in very aggressive, coward and even obsessive ways". As far as you seem to like generic-prejudices-based communication, I guess that you shouldn't mind me saying that women tend to blindly apply/defend the status quo rather than critically understanding specific scenarios. Men do certainly tend to be more aggressive, but also straightforward and confident what might be quite helpful when trying to understand others. These generic features seem even more accentuated in older generations: men being more aggressive and (in many cases, unmotivatedly) confident about their positions; and women more focused on blindly (and not always directly/openly) defending whatever they think that is right rather than on properly understanding. Or, by relying on an example like yours, what do all those girls who grew dreaming about becoming Jackie Kennedy or Princess Diana and gradually realised that their lives will never be like that? Accept their responsibility, try to enjoy what they have/improve it or get unreasonably frustrated and try to blame someone else?
As said, the aforementioned ideas don't represent what I think, just what I consider a reasonably good generic-prejudice-based counterpoint to your post. I consider equally invalid any opinion based on whatever generic features which I (don't) have. I am a man, but there are many men with whom I share pretty much nothing. There are also many people in their 30s-40s having nothing to do with me. Similar ideas apply to my country-(wo)men (Spain) and to those sharing my race (white), level of education (university), career (programming/engineering), etc. Since my first post in this thread, I referred to stupid people, not to men/women, old/young, sexists/tolerant, etc. I only said that there are lots of people with serious understanding problems and all the replies seemed to have confirmed that initial point.
Reaching a point where you actually can and are willing to properly understand others in almost any scenario (= becoming sensible, knowledgeable, understanding, etc.) is and has always been reserved to the few. It isn't just about jokes, sharp remarks or intuitively recognising when someone is trying to trick you, but about pretty much everything. Also about becoming properly-speaking adults accepting themselves, what they have/can, taking responsibility for their own mistakes, etc. Under exactly the same conditions, some people will deliver better outputs than others. The problem now, mainly in internet, is the huge visibility that everything and everyone has; even worse: the appearance of new waves of fanaticism in the form of trends, manipulation, people repeating over and over pure nonsense. Having immediate access to so much knowledge can be overwhelming for a big number of people or avoid them to properly accept themselves/the world.
The higher the availability of resources of all kinds, the lower the restrictions/borders, the more likely that more people will be able to learn more and better, to understand what they want and get it. Unfortunately, internet isn't a non-profit only looking for improving everyone's lives, but pretty much the opposite: the most heartless, aggressively capitalist system (or, at least, enabler) ever created. Apparently, one of the most efficient proceedings to get benefits no matter what is telling people what they want to hear. And a big number of people seems to be mostly interested in hearing how intelligent they are, how well they do everything, how special they are, how easily they could reach anything with no effort and, mainly, that every problem is some else's fault. Internet does allow to accomplish many things which were impossible years ago, but the required effort to convert that opportunity into reality will always be there. A big number of people seem to have forgotten about that. Also internet gives voice to lots of individuals about whom almost nobody would have heard otherwise.
Note that I personally find much more serious understanding problems among younger people (I am almost 40 myself). Some older people might have a bit outdated ideas and problems to adapt to the modern world, but properly speaking/self-aware adults are rarely the problem (and reaching that stage, although not directly/necessarily related to age, is usually associated with time, having made lots of errors, etc.). Easily-manipulable young (again not meaning just age) people are good targets for lost (and/or egoist, greedy, with lacks on many fronts) individuals and expectations making them enter into the stupid sub-level that, hopefully, some of them will eventually leave.
TL;DR: the resources (to be happy, to be knowledgeable, to be self aware, to virtually everything) are better than ever before, but also the visibility and the easy/stupid-making/fanatic alternatives. As they say: with great power comes great responsibility.
No, kenh is rather common and unexceptional, to the point of banality. And not just on Slashdot, or the Internet, but across the world at large.
Perhaps you are right and this is pretty much the reason why I will better stop posting in Slashdot (and even in internet in general). Just for a while, forever, who knows for sure? I am fine with having lots of problems to find people able and willing to properly understand, but getting systematically involved in ridiculous conversations between what I say and the craziest misinterpretations of my words is starting to be too tiring. And the best part is that I don't need to tolerate anything of that!
I have always been after the same: finding people seeing the world as I do. I have tried to help and to contribute to what I think that is better for the highest number of people, but always by accepting that some people might not want to change. Don't you like how I think? No problem. Just avoid dealing with me. I have over-explained way much more than required; but aggressive, self-invited, in-denial individuals keep coming to me with their unreasonable concerns. Why continuing, then? To get involved in 2-3 kind-of-sensible-but-not-precisely-marvellous discussions and then a completely crazy one? This doesn't seem worthy to me.
This seems like a quite good last post, at least for a while. I will be answering whatever reply, but not writing new posts. I might come back in some months, no idea. So long, Slashdot.
Does anyone know how it works internally? I guess that, practically speaking, its main point is having a positive impact on how Google is perceived. I also guess that they are "motivated" to find as many big bugs as possible. But there are tons of possible targets out there and finding serious bugs requires a relevant effort. Any clue about their usual approach on this front? There isn't much available information and I am honestly curious.
Thanks to Ken in this sub-thread, I realised that that the parent comment might still be a bit confusing for some people. So, I clarify that all my plural references (e.g., "The more we evolve") were meant to refer to the whole human kind. Logically, I am included in that group and that's why I am part of that "we"; but also logically I am not including myself within the stupids subset.
There will be no AI-based apocalypse of any sort; at least, not within the next many many years. In fact, so many disproportionate expectations might be provoking the evolution of this subfield to be notably worse than ideal. Unnecessarily speeding up so complex developments is likely to output bad quality, problems and, eventually, bad advertisement with subsequent mistrust.
I meant "You are a workbook sample of the kind of personality which will never have anything to do with me!" rather than "You are a workbook sample of the kind of personality which will ever have anything to do with me".
There are other (irrelevant) mistakes, but I only clarify this one to make sure that Ken or similar don't think that I want to have anything to do with them.
is holding out the possibility that someone may believe the post wasn't sarcastic, but serious.
I have met lots of people having problems to understand way simpler statements. You are actually not understanding my position and reacting unreasonably aggressively to an in-principle-not-going-with-you generic statement, so you are kind of proving my point of lots of people with lots of understanding problems everywhere.
We all noticed
Aren't you just one person or do you have a multiple personality disorder or are you simply in completely denial and think that everyone else around you have the same understanding/behaviours problems that you have? I have been visiting Slashdot for a while now and I am quite sure that your unreasonably aggressiveness and lack of understanding isn't the standard here. You seem more like an exception, at least among the logged-in users.
to convince us
Convincing you (all)?! LOL. You are definitively in denial, the sub-version misinterpreting explanations as excuses to their self-elevated authorities whose agreement have to be obtained. LOL. Just FYI, I mostly explain to those who I consider that aren't able to understand by their own, not for convincing (you try to convince authorities which you recognise as such and whose decisions are relevant to you; in my case, this happens with people who, at least, are able to understand what I consider basic without help) but helping them.
someone - not you, but someone - might take the comment serious?
So, you are saying that my first comment was my alibi, right? Like these people not understanding something and just repeating what others say to look smart (an expression which I have always found very funny, almost sitcom material) or attacking those using many words or something like that, right? LOL. Nothing of that applies to me. I don't care about others' absolute opinions/validation, but about dealing with people able to get involved in sensible conversations, to objectively understand, etc. I don't lie. I don't do anything to show whatever. All what I say is meant to be understood exactly as per my evident intention. If you have any doubt, you can ask me and I would tell you exactly what I meant. Nothing to interpret. No hidden meanings.
Imagining someone is more gullible than you, more sexist, more biased than you doesn't make you less gullible, sexist, or less biased.
Where have I said anything against that evident (at least for me) statement? I am not sexist or biased, at least not in a relevant conscious way. I think that I am pretty much the opposite than gullible in general, but I guess that, under the right conditions, everyone is a bit gullible. But no idea what has this to do with what I said. Again you want to see non-existing meaning from my quite straightforwards words.
The "big proportion" you seem to imagine only, apparently, lives in your mind
Most of people are intelligent, sensible, logical, practical, etc.? The world is a marvelous place where everyone understands everything properly? Most of people make excellent decisions, don't have unreasonable feelings like hate or fear unless under well justified conditions, take responsibility of all what they provoke by themselves without blaming anyone else? I see it now! I was so blind! LOL. You are a workbook sample of the kind of personality which will ever have anything to do with me! This is the softest version I can come up with to describe your "peculiarities".
or are incapable of clicking submit as Anonymous Coward.
LOL. First of all, I have never ever posted anonymously here or anywhere else, not for something that I care. No idea what is the matter with some people (very intelligent and secure all of them. LOL) and doing-crazy-things-because-nobody-knows-it-is-you. I have never had that need in any contex
And yet, only YOU brought it up as even possibly being serious...
???!!!! Where have you got from that I have even slightly implied that a so evident joke should be taken seriously by anyone? I said that there are many stupid (a group to which you seem to belong) unable to understand ideas as simple as that. My comment was mainly targeting the obviously part, obvious for me and for that poster, but not for many other individuals. Like the intention of my clarification, extremely evident but apparently too difficult for you.
Think about it.
I will better not do it. You are putting together some unreasonable prejudices, coming up with quite "curious" conclusions and apparently implying that anything of what you are saying has anything to do with my posts or the one to which I firstly replied, when this is clearly not the case. I simply highlighted that a big proportion of people, regardless of anything else, are pretty stupid in the sense of not being able to adequately understand relatively simple ideas like (theoretically) evident jokes. That's why I think that the original post "obviously he's being sarcastic." is likely to not be true for a big proportion of potential readers, unable to get the sarcasm without some additional help. BTW, are you getting the irony of me having to explain you what is going on here?
And maybe, just maybe, they'll grow up one day too.
This sounds nice and logical and sensible and how could it be otherwise?, etc. But then why there are so many problems and have always been so many problems in the world? Why fanaticism, unreasonably hate and prejudices exist? Why sensible, knowledgeable, calmed, long-term-focused people aren't ruling the world? Because the reality is that only a few people will learn from/take responsibility for their errors and will eventually grow up, but most of them will continue being stupid.
The more we evolve and the better are the available resources (internet is potentially a huge deal on the knowledge sharing front), the less stupid we are likely to be. But it will still take a very long time before fanaticism, unmotivated fears, not-properly-understanding others or similar nonsense will be completely removed. So, I will better continue assuming that most of people aren't able to properly understand almost anything.